Conservatives Vote To Include Necrophilia In Their Party Platform (Satire)

In the last day of their policy convention, the Conservative Party of Canada voted to adopt a pro-necrophilia addition to their policy statement. The vote was far from unanimous, as many wanted nothing to do with that ideology.

Predictably, religious supporters and family oriented people continued their exodus. They clung to their antiquated ideals of tradition and decency. There was also a lot of indignation that the opening prayer had been replaced by a spirit cooking.

Military veterans were upset that a war memorial had been converted to a statute of Necrolitos and Baphomet. They claimed it was erasing the memories of their dead comrades.

The party provided free samples of embalming fluid at the entrance, but that gesture caused very mixed reactions.

Party insiders complained privately to the Babylon Beaver staff that they are sick of the “what do you conserve?” meme that is still going around.

O’Toole explained: “There was a time when allowing open homosexuality was frowned upon. We were told that it would never stop there. Sure, we now allow group marriages, abortion on demand, euthanasia, transgenderism, trans kids, drag queen story hour, compelled speech, forced nut waxing, pedophilia, beastiality, and now necrophilia, but there is no slippery slope. Conservatism means standing for nothing, and embracing everything as tolerance and diversity.”

He added: “I will not allow candidates in the next election to spout the Liberal lies that we are a group of intolerant bigots”.

However, it’s unclear how well this will translate into ballots in the next election. The Necro Community is very small, and have traditionally been Liberal voters. However some of the small government types tended to support the Libertarians. More research will have to be done on the viability of such a strategy.

In any event, the added economic activity is expected to generate plenty of tax revenue to spend on other programs.

Mr. Coudenhove-Kalergi, the Shadow Minister for Immigration, spoke of releasing their proposal for immigration reform. In the future, necrophiles would be awarded extra points in the immigration system, given the focus on inclusivity.

It was suggested that a combination of tax breaks and loosened regulations could ultimately get more of the necros on board with conservatism.

The final version of the amended platform is expected to be available in a few days.

4 Replies to “Conservatives Vote To Include Necrophilia In Their Party Platform (Satire)”

  1. This post is labelled as being a satire, which some will overlook and disregard. Such information could easily be taken as serious and real, though mistakenly. It seems like a very dangerous thing to present, especially because numerous people simply scan information and don’t necessarily take the time or energy to really look and contemplate every element of the information they perceive. In my first glance at this post, I didn’t catch the “satire” mention, taking this as serious information as the majority of your posts convey. I’ll be more careful in the future to ensure more attention to any mention of “satire”. What’s the point of presenting this type of post? Is it to poke fun or simply criticize conservatives as disingenuous and unworthy of trust? Is it meant to present that the conservative party is anti-social norm? What’s the point of such a presentation?

    1. The point of this is:

      (a) April Fool’s Day jokiness, and
      (b) Mocking the undeniable trend that mainstream “conservative” politicians have no interest in conserving what makes up society.

      While the overall piece is satire, a lot of the items mentioned have already happened, so supporting necrophilia isn’t that farfetched. The post is added for comedic effect, a break from what is normally presented. Note: whenever parody/satire is added, it is clearly labelled as such.

  2. Oh my heaven’s, I don’t know what’s funnier, or more disturbing: your hilarious and very on point send up of the ‘Conservative’ policies, platform and direction, and the frightening undercurrents which are driving them, or Mr. Hawkes ‘insightful’ comment. Was the latter unintentionally spectacularly obtuse, or another April 1st sendup?

    Perhaps, unlike your article, his comment could come with a label to help those of us who “simply scan information and don’t necessarily take the time or energy to really look and contemplate every element of the information they perceive”? Otherwise, there is a danger his “information could easily be taken as serious and real, though mistakenly.”

    If, otoh, his was another very tongue-in-cheek Fool’s Day contribution, well done, Mr. Hawke. Well done.

Leave a Reply